Forum rules
Any controversial topic can be discussed. Freedom of expression is encouraged. The scientific validity of things posted in this forum may stray from reality quite wildly and the reader is advised to keep that in mind. Please refrain from bad language and DO NOT get overly abusive with other members. You MUST post in English. It is OK to have fiercely intense debate. This forum has no connection with CERN, the LHC or my site. The views here do not represent the forum's views or my views in any way. It is meant as a place to debate or discuss subjects that may create heated debate. Almost no moderation will occur in this forum at all.

Your analogies make no sense
Your numbers are just made up to suit your theories
Your logic does not even exist.
I doubt whether even you really know what your current theory is.....it changes so often.

It seems to be something like....we are disturbing the balance of nature and we are all doomed.
This theory has been around since someone invented the wheel, and it is still dribble.

Nature only has a balance in your mind. Nature is not static, it is dynamic.
The collisions we make imitate those found in nature. Except that the ones found in nature are vastly more powerful.

I suspect that your real problem is that you are anti-technology. You don't trust it. You don't understand it and you fear it.

Look at the first plot on the right. It shows a graph of flux, measured in number of particles per square meter per second per steradian per GeV (10^9 eV), on the vertical axis, versus particle energy, in electron volts, on the horizontal axis. You will see that the largest flux is at low energy (about 10^9 eV), where the flux is about 1000 particles/m^2-s-sr-GeV. That is, in one square meter, looking over the whole upper half of the sky (2 pi = 6.2 sr), in a bandwidth of 1 GeV, one sees 1000 particles every second. That is very small compared to the luminosity of the LHC, which is somewhere around 10^30 collisions per square centimeter per second. The protons in the LHC have an energy of around 3.5 x 10^12 eV (3.5 TeV). Going back to the cosmic ray plot, you see that the flux of particles with energies around 10^12 eV is much lower, around 10^-3, that is, 0.001 particle/m^2-s-sr-GeV, or about 3 particles per square meter per steradian per GeV per *hour*.

The next question you had concerns the number of particles created in cosmic ray showers. That is a much more complicated question, but the general trend is that higher energy cosmic rays produce more secondary particles. So while cosmic rays with energies of a few GeV may produce a handful of particles, the highest energy cosmic rays, around 10^19 eV, produce showers containing billions of particles. A somewhat technical overview on cosmic ray showers can be found here: http://pdg.lbl.gov/2007/reviews/cosmicrayrpp.pdf

The flux of cosmic ray shower particles versus particle type is seen in Figure 24.3. The horizontal axis this time is atmospheric depth, which is zero at the highest altitudes, and about 1000 grams per square centimeter near sea level. Near sea level the cosmic ray secondary particles are mostly neutrinos and muons (about 100 particles per square meter per second per steradian), with smaller amounts of protons, neutrons, electrons, positrons, and pions.

btwI would like to clarify that the ratio of energies between 10^18 and 10^9 eV is *not* double, but rather a factor of 10^9 (that is, a billion times). Remember, when dividing numbers in scientific notation, one subtracts the exponents.

Dance, even if you have nowhere to do it but your own living room.Wear Sunscreen by Baz Luhrmann - Mary Schmich

sure.......but what relationship does that have to your theories of doom and the LHC?

If I establish that the sun is very hot and also that the LHC collisions will get very hot, it doesn't follow that the lhc will go nova. But that is the sort of disassociated logic? that you use. You make strange analogies between apples and lighthouses and draw conclusions from them.
Logic......Logic....Logic. What you use is NOT logic. Its rambling disassociative nonsense.

I understand him so far, that he states that the luminosity intended to be created in the LHC is unprecedented by any natural occurring luminositys. Resulting from that he claims all the saftyconsiderations comparimg the LHC to neatural phenomenons might fail in the case a new effect would be caused not by high energy collissions but rather by high luminosity itselfe.
I agree with this argumentation so far, but I disagree to assume a dangerous reaction resulting from only high luminosity to be very likely, a also I agree it might be really possible but just highly improbable that it really is this way.

"highly improbable" is very vague term. Some people tend to understand it as "not more than once a day".
"I don't see any reason why that should happen" is vague too but at least it doesn't suggest it will happen as it reaches the limit from the other side.

Funny thing is that people are all concentrated on high luminosity, high energy concentration ... and nobody is noticing that LHC is special on the other end of the scale - it is really the coldest thing in the known universe and no natural phenomena is cooler (because of relict radiation temperature). Nobody did yet come with idea that LHC will generate a giant frostball that will freeze whole earth to death...
Although the principle on which this could be seen working is exactly the same chain reaction (and reasons why that won't work are the same too).

The lowest temperature is only true compared to phenomenons naturally occurring and maybe also considering thevolume and mass being cooled to such alow temperature, but for much smaller masses like a few atoms (in a EBC and other experiments) reachd temperatures much colder than the LHC, they are talking there about nanokelvin insted of 2.9k.

In my eyes the possible dangers of very low temperatures are alredy discussed in connection with EBC independently evenso it doesn't make sence to me to see EBC in connection with the LHC.

About the unlikelyness we talk of 2 possible kinds of unliklyness:
1. the unlikelyness that there is a dangerous phenomenon resulting from high ennergies, high energys, high luminosities or even low temperatures at all. To evaluate this unlikelyness we alwayshav to take in account that there are still many things about the cosmos which we just not yet know, we do not even now if we know alredy more or less than half of the whole reality.

2. Assuming ther is a dangerous effect involved the likelyness or unlikelyness that this effect will occur in acertain number of collissions or not. This kind of unlikelynesswould decrease the more collisions were performed at all.

Especially for Ivan I am not sure if he always clearly distinguishesbetween thees 2 kinds of unlikelyness and if he does I am not sureif he adds them up in the right way.

Regarding probabilities, there is one more important thing to consider. Not only anti-LHC crew considers the first kind as given (i.e. 100% there is some violent unknown) and the second kind as fairly high chance (in two or three days) but they also assume this violent unknown will not give any early warnings whatsoever, it'll be just a big kaboom.

That is another thing that doesn't work in nature. Even nuclear weapons give lots of early warnings which would stop you if you were assembling one unintentionally. And any particle physics phenomenon worked similar way as well, giving clues about its existence at lower energies and demonstrating itself fully at higher. So the third kind of probability is, what is the chance there really will be kaboom without any early warning?

The only unusual thing found so far is slightly increased production of charged hadrons. May it result in something violent? I doubt it but I believe somebody experienced was considering that too when deciding next LHC collision energy level.

mrgumby wrote:sure.......but what relationship does that have to your theories of doom and the LHC?

If I establish that the sun is very hot and also that the LHC collisions will get very hot, it doesn't follow that the lhc will go nova. But that is the sort of disassociated logic? that you use. You make strange analogies between apples and lighthouses and draw conclusions from them.
Logic......Logic....Logic. What you use is NOT logic. Its rambling dissociative nonsense.

No it is 100% logic, there are no loopholes in what I say. If you open yourself up and listen like Chriwi does and confirms, aside from the disaster scenario, you'll see that it all makes sense. Hot and Cold just work together that's how it is. If there is no cold to support the magnets, no acceleration in the lhc, it is as simple as that. Energy or fire or simply work, is a condition of one going into an other state. Just like AC electricity goes up and down producing light. Or how gravity can be a cooling reaction, something that moves less falls to the bottom of the earth which is pretty cold, same thing for the sun if it's ice cold BEC on the inside the outside would vaporize, just like ice mets, very simple logic, look at one of my other posts where I say that the a new solar system is born in the middle of a post SuperNova dust cloud, because it are the coldest place in the universe. And remember that BEC can combust. It sound very unlogic to see the heart of the sun as ice but it could easily be think of the black spots on the sun. Or how a frostbite burns skin in the same way as fire does, the energy we feel is the transition from one state to an other. In a funny way you could also see the lhc as a sprinkler cooling matter, creating BEC that could explode, try to listen and see the logic. I know it all sounds nuts but it isn't.

chriwi wrote:that is only a matter of time, old people are thinking that way, but for our children always watching pokeymon etc. alse things like icerays are very familiar.

chriwi wrote:please take also attention of my extension of the last post about improbabilities!

I don't agree one step further could also be seen as one step closer to ignition. But this is a simple yes vs. no argument that we can continue having, unless proved otherwise, now you are still on the wining site

Kasuha wrote:The only unusual thing found so far is slightly increased production of charged hadrons. May it result in something violent? I doubt it but I believe somebody experienced was considering that too when deciding next LHC collision energy level.

Who would that somebody experienced be? That person doesn't exist, the lhc is simply the result of an ongoing race, and everyone is focused on the smaller and smaller, or heavier and heavier particles that pop up, but they are failing to see the whole. For example Hawking says that the higgs is unlikely to be found, Higgs says that hawking's way of calculating things are not really accepted, hawking is in discussion with Leonard Susskind, ...

The problem is if you start to make one sparky thing, the result is that you immediately generate a whole series of them, 'cause the lhc works like an assembly line with an enormous frequency. Fact is there are a lot of 'white elephants' in the room that are simply neglected, while every one laughs and say a 'pink bunny' might pop up. The only hopeful thing I read was in the case of a burning reactor, that only simple water could make it stop, but I don't see how they are going to do this underground at the lhc before everything else start to combust.

Dance, even if you have nowhere to do it but your own living room.Wear Sunscreen by Baz Luhrmann - Mary Schmich

Chelle wrote:No it is 100% logic, there are no loopholes in what I say. If you open yourself up and listen like Chriwi does and confirms, aside from the disaster scenario, you'll see that it all makes sense. Hot and Cold just work together that's how it is. If there is no cold to support the magnets, no acceleration in the lhc, it is as simple as that. Energy or fire or simply work, is a condition of one going into an other state. Just like AC electricity goes up and down producing light. Or how gravity can be a cooling reaction, something that moves less falls to the bottom of the earth which is pretty cold, same thing for the sun if it's ice cold BEC on the inside the outside would vaporize, just like ice mets, very simple logic, look at one of my other posts where I say that the a new solar system is born in the middle of a post SuperNova dust cloud, because it are the coldest place in the universe. And remember that BEC can combust. It sound very unlogic to see the heart of the sun as ice but it could easily be think of the black spots on the sun. Or how a frostbite burns skin in the same way as fire does, the energy we feel is the transition from one state to an other. In a funny way you could also see the lhc as a sprinkler cooling matter, creating BEC that could explode, try to listen and see the logic. I know it all sounds nuts but it isn't.

I'm speechless. Rarely have I read such a complete mixup of totally unrelated yet still mostly false claims, starting with the first sentence.

By the way, I wonder why you keep going on about the intensity of the beams. There is absolutely no difference between 1000000 seconds of reactions at a rate of 1/s, or 1 second of reactions at a rate of 1000000/s, or 0.000001s of reactions at a rate of 100000000000/s. There is no "buildup" of heat, energy or anything else. Thus, the interaction of cosmic rays with the atmosphere, the surface of the moon or even the sun is a pretty good analogon to the reactions happening at the LHC.